It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do we need the second amendment?

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 06:49 AM
link   
The events in Las Vegas require a strong pro 2nd amendment response by the US government, by increasing the availability of firearms to the public.




posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Flanker86

Disclaimer:

I fully support the right of a population to keep and carry (I use that word specifically to remove ambiguity) arms for their defence, from threats of every stripe, from the common or garden street level criminal, to tyrannical overreach by government.

However, I would also like to point out, that Las Vegas has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the United States, as I pointed out in one of the threads relating to the Mandalay Bay shooting specifically. Its worth noting that in order to combat this particular threat, it would have been necessary to engage the shooter from significant distance, at an upward angle. In order to achieve this with aplomb, a precision tool would likely have been necessary. I do not see any old person with limited range time, pulling that shot off from the ground with a garden variety weapon. I am thinking some high quality barrel, high power scope, possibly with some IR functionality, firing a decent sized projectile at a very high muzzle velocity. Something tuned for the purpose. You do not out gun automatic fire from that distance, with a Walmart purchased AR.

This was not the sort of close ranged assault we saw during the Aurora shooting, which could have been directly engaged by someone carrying a pistol, if they had the stones and the presence of mind to keep calm enough to deploy it effectively, when surrounded by chaos. This is a whole other kind of event.

Of course, if you had another meaning by what you said, then I suppose this whole post has been a waste. *shrugs*



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Indeed TrueBrit,

The situation in Vegas is not something that spectators on the ground could avoid. But the same situation could not be avoided in Utoya either, in 2012, even with Norwegian stringent gun laws. The shooting in Vegas is an enemy aggression against the US 2nd amendment and the US constitution and as such should be treated. An enemy aggression cannot be defeated using stringent gun laws, that's why the machine gun ban of 1986 is pointless. Moreover, the machine gun ban law of 1986 is the result of EU meddling and lefty anti-gun propaganda, that's the good enough reason to repeal it.

Facing such enemy aggressor intent on sabotaging the 2nd amendment and therefore the 1st, cannot be done passively. (reacting at every provocation coming from the enemy) Rather it has to be done actively with forceful determination, and repealing the gun law of 1986 would sent the enemy a clear and defiant message, because it would restore the founding principle. This can be done at one condition: any gun purchase requires proof of either the possession of US citizenship or the possession of a valid long term working contract in the US.
No illegal immigrants with guns !!!



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Only an idiot would go on the offensive against tanks and bombers with a bolt action 30.06

A smarter person would avoid the impenetrable targets, and instead focus on softer targets that their weapons work on.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Why do we need the second amendment?

It's not a need anymore, as you pointed out. It's a want. People in other countries can own firearms without an amendment because they WANT them too.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

We 'need" it because our ancestors lived in jolly old europe, and were tired of their government monopolizing violence in ways that were not in the best interest of the people being governed.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: intrepid

We 'need" it because our ancestors lived in jolly old europe, and were tired of their government monopolizing violence in ways that were not in the best interest of the people being governed.


Ancient history. I'm reminded of Johnny Blaze's words:




posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
Ancient history. I'm reminded of Johnny Blaze's words:


So, let me get this straight, Trep... not you, specifically, but many in America who reject the colonial era argument for why the Second Amendment is vital to the continued survival of the US as a sovereign nation make the "that's ancient history, times have changed" argument. Most of the Americans who make that argument, are also very much into the "Oh look at how America treated the indians" "oh slavery, boo hoo look at what we did" and the ever popular "how many did the Catholic church kill during the crusades, but Islam is supposedly so evil today" arguments. Which is it? Does history count and remain relevant today, or do we wipe the slate clean and move beyond it all?

I feel no shame, so I'm perfectly fine with folks pissing and moaning about the past while I stand here in the present day perhaps owning one or more firearms and supporting the full exercise of this nation's most important and most unique God given right of self defense and firearm ownership, and usage. I just would like to see some consistency.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrepid
Ancient history. I'm reminded of Johnny Blaze's words:


So, let me get this straight, Trep... not you, specifically, but many in America who reject the colonial era argument for why the Second Amendment is vital to the continued survival of the US as a sovereign nation make the "that's ancient history, times have changed" argument. Most of the Americans who make that argument, are also very much into the "Oh look at how America treated the indians" "oh slavery, boo hoo look at what we did" and the ever popular "how many did the Catholic church kill during the crusades, but Islam is supposedly so evil today" arguments. Which is it? Does history count and remain relevant today, or do we wipe the slate clean and move beyond it all?


No, I don't buy that either. History.


I feel no shame, so I'm perfectly fine with folks pissing and moaning about the past while I stand here in the present day perhaps owning one or more firearms and supporting the full exercise of this nation's most important and most unique God given right of self defense and firearm ownership, and usage. I just would like to see some consistency.


I have no problem with that except... the god part.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

To protect the Citizens from the Government.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

So is slavery....doesn't seem to matter too much though judging by the top stories in media 2 days ago.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: intrepid

So is slavery....doesn't seem to matter too much though judging by the top stories in media 2 days ago.


Also history BUT rights for blacks is fairly recent. Not on paper but in practice. We're not fully there yet.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Everyone is someones family and friends.


But our own family and friends? That's paranoia, to me, but I guess I am not deeming it an invalid thought process.
a reply to: deadlyhope



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: intrepid

So is slavery....doesn't seem to matter too much though judging by the top stories in media 2 days ago.


Also history BUT rights for blacks is fairly recent. Not on paper but in practice. We're not fully there yet.


So take away their Second Amendment rights while we're trying to get them equality on rights is progress? Not seeing it...



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: intrepid

So is slavery....doesn't seem to matter too much though judging by the top stories in media 2 days ago.


Also history BUT rights for blacks is fairly recent. Not on paper but in practice. We're not fully there yet.


So take away their Second Amendment rights while we're trying to get them equality on rights is progress? Not seeing it...


That's because I'm not saying it. Two separate issues. And I didn't say take the 2nd away. I said there was no "need" for it. Firearms are SO entrenched in your society that it's not going anywhere. Just say it's a "want" is all I said.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: intrepid

So is slavery....doesn't seem to matter too much though judging by the top stories in media 2 days ago.


Also history BUT rights for blacks is fairly recent. Not on paper but in practice. We're not fully there yet.


So take away their Second Amendment rights while we're trying to get them equality on rights is progress? Not seeing it...


That's because I'm not saying it. Two separate issues. And I didn't say take the 2nd away. I said there was no "need" for it. Firearms are SO entrenched in your society that it's not going anywhere. Just say it's a "want" is all I said.


America is way too vast and diverse to make that statement, though. Yes, for some Americans the 2nd is nothing but a "want." as they have little personal present need for a firearm. For others, however, it is very much a need. Part of equality, however, is that rights don't require a discernment between want and need, as the right is there for everyone to exercise. That makes argument over want or need fairly pointless... and exercise in arguing simply for the sake of arguing.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
I never wanted a gun. Now that people Riot over and even for Trump, now I do. Both sides are aggressive and quick to profile anyone as they see fit and act with violence.

Nothing can stop tanks, but people really have to be acting out before the tanks come in, and police respondent isn't as immediate as personal defense.

If you think you need a gun to ride the bus or walk down the street outside of these ideas, that's a bit paranoid, but condonable for the same reasons as riots.


Where are the Trump riots?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Seems simple, loose the second the others are next.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
For others, however, it is very much a need.


Howso? And no I'm not arguing for the sake of it.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
For others, however, it is very much a need.


Howso? And no I'm not arguing for the sake of it.


Ranchers depend on firearms to protect their livlyhoods, outdoorsmen in places like Alaska become bear SNIP all too frequently if they're not carrying, some of our cities are hellholes (and not just from gun violence) where no sane woman or man would venture into certain neighborhoods without a carry weapon, if I was a night clerk, I sure as hell wouldn't show up to work without packing. There are also still more than a few families in the US who depend heavily on hunting to put food on the table.
edit on 3-10-2017 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join